Comments on: Mea Culpa. Sort of.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:39:38 +0000

The fact that you were given bad tax advice from professionals should be a mitigating factor in your tax issue now. I would advise you to find good legal counsel (your local bar association should be able to help) for your audit.

And to be clear, I don’t think that an award should be a windfall to a plaintiff – that isn’t the same as no gain. And as someone who has been intimately involved in costs and awards associated with bad behaviors by defendants, I still believe that to be true.

By: Gwen

Gwen — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:20:26 +0000

As I have been searching for supporting documentation for my own fight with the IRS, I have been reading this blog with great interest. Unfortunately for me, I wish I had an attorney willing to fight this battle without wanting to cost me an arm and a leg. I received a fairly large settlement in 2004, with advice from both the attorney at the time and my tax preparer did not report the income and have now found myself in an IRS audit which wants to end with taking most of the money away. The implication that “an award is meant only to punish the bad guy thus the injured party should not receive any gain (without punishment also) is preposterous. Perhaps when some on that side of the camp experience the incredible cost this type of action takes from the victim, the responses within a blog will be different.

By: Fix The Tax Code Friday: Judgments

Fix The Tax Code Friday: Judgments — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:46:19 +0000

[...] been a fun week on taxgirl.com. There’s been lots of commentary about Murphy v. IRS – both on and off the blog. I’ve appreciated your comments and emails. I thought, in light of the [...]

By: Income Tax Hacker

Income Tax Hacker — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:02:01 +0000

Mr. Colapinto should stop wasting his valuable time responding to tax blogs, no matter how erroneously they might report on Ms. Murphy’s case. The “Tax Girl,” stuck in oldies heaven as she is, enjoys the right to misstate facts and draw erroneous conclusions. Many of us anti-income taxers were hoping that Ms. Murphy’s case would bring about the demise of the absurd income tax. But now that the views of “Tax Prof(iteer)s” such as “Tax Girl” and Paul Caron have again prevailed, it is high time for Mr. Colapinto to again mount his steed and to draw fresh blood from the income tax dragon with the sharp sword of a petition for rehearing en banc.

By: Income Tax Hacker

Income Tax Hacker — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:55:57 +0000

Mr. Colapinto should stop wasting his valuable time responding to tax blogs, no matter how erroneously they might report on Ms. Murphy’s case. The “Tax Girl,” stuck in oldies heaven as she is, enjoys the right to misstate facts and draw erroneous conclusions. Many of us anti-income taxers were hoping that Ms. Murphy’s case would bring about the demise of the absurd income tax. But now that the views of profiteering “Tax Profs” such as “Tax Girl” and Paul Caron have again prevailed, it is high time for Mr. Colapinto to again mount his steed and to draw fresh blood from the income tax dragon with the sharp sword of a petition for rehearing en banc.

By: Judge

Judge — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 02:08:47 +0000

I just don’t understand the dispute here. The trial court in Murphy was clearly wrong in its initial holding of nontaxability, and that error has been corrected. There was no injury on account of personal physical injury, and therefore the damages are taxable. Nobody ever said the tax laws were fair, and if people have a problem with the taxability of such damages, they should call their congressman.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:45:14 +0000

Mr. Colapinto -

Clearly you don’t take tongue-in-cheek very well, as that’s exactly what the term “prolific commenter of tax blogs” was meant to be. It was a joke and hardly meant to be inflammatory.

I stand by the facts of this case as reported (which you have not in your numerous trips to the comment bar offered any specific information disputing).

I don’t claim to know the details of federal whistle-blowing statutes. You have stated that the remedies in whistle-blowing cases are limited to “make whole” remedies, so fine. However, the government did argue that this was an “accession to wealth” and the court did not disagree.

I didn’t call Ms. Murphy names (!) and my comment about you was clearly, as stated above, a joke.

And as to your comment about my sparing you my snide personal remarks, it’s my blog and I’ll snark if I want to. You can always read something else.

By: David Colapinto

David Colapinto — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:27:07 +0000

Where do you get the idea that I am a “prolific commentor of tax blogs”? Today is the first time I have ever posted to a so-called “tax blog”, and I did so only because your report was so fundamentally inaccurate and false, and other blogs were reprinting your false statements.

In your original post you did not simply suggest that these kinds of awards are really a punishment to the defendant, rather than compensation to the plaintiff. Instead, you stated as a matter of fact that awards in these kinds of whistleblower cases are meant to punish the defendant. You then went on to state: “In contrast, awards for personal injury are not (in theory) meant to punish the defendant but make the plaintiff whole. Those are different results and should be taxed differently.”

The point that you miss is that Ms. Murphy was only awarded “make whole” tort-type damages. FYI, compensatory damages awarded under the federal environmental whistleblower statutes, the laws under which Ms. Murphy prevailed, can only be a “make whole” remedy as a matter of law.

I do stand corrected on my earlier comment on the court’s ruling as follows: I meant to state in my comment that the court ruled that all non-physical personal injury awards are taxable. I apologize for omitting the word “non-physical.” Thank you for pointing out that error.

It is unfortunate that you won’t correct the false and inaccurate statements reported as fact in your July 7th blog on this topic.

You obviously don’t take criticism well and are not interested in fair reporting given your determination to ignore the facts and call both Ms. Murphy and her attorney names in response to my original comment. In the future, please spare us your snide personal remarks.